SlimVirgin has made several personal attacks and uncivil remarks toward other editors. She has also sometimes, when involved in disputes, excessively stressed other editors' involvement in unrelated issues or association with other users regarded as problematic, rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion.

Over a period of months if not years, as a result of disputes like the ones culminating in this case, vast amounts of editor time and effort that could have been devoted to content creation and other improvement of the encyclopedia has been diverted. Many members of the community have been demoralized by the feuding, personal attacks, and perceived double standards.

Arbcom

9,000+

This user has made over 9,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

Hi everyone. I apologize if I have been a jerk to anyone. I invite you to help me in writing articles and resolving disputes in a civilized way.

Previous talk pages

• /History 2002-2004 /History2 Jan-Aug 05 /History3 Aug-Dec 05 /History4 Jan-Apr 06 /History5 Apr-Aug 06 /History6 Aug-Dec 06
• up until late 2007, up until early 2008

New ED ref

You may want to look at this: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 --Urban Rose 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• And also at this Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8. Altough I think it will be speedy closed again. --Have a nice day. Running 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• party hard! --Have a nice day. Running 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

amit

Please do not without reason delete a deletion proposition. You may like the article but follow the rules. --GBVrallyCI (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

lol what? Wikipedia:PROD#Contesting_a_proposed_deletion Shii (tock) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

i'm not edit warring with you buddy, i just did it the proper way. perhaps you can help here. There was an old article for someone named Amit Singh that was deleted, but the discussion page links to him. How can we get a new page for this Amit Singh. this is what appears - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amit_Singh

--GBVrallyCI (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK... you should have asked somewhere what to do in that situation, rather than replacing a prod tag after it's contested. You use a style like subst:afd|Weather in London (2nd nomination). Shii (tock) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Site Whose Name Should Not Be Mentioned Here

You know about this amirite? Also User:Urban Rose was over at ED talking about an article (see Community Portal). --Piepie (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw the mess she made on Wikipedia Review. I will probably oversee the creation of the article myself. Shii (tock) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC draft

I'm drafting an RfC you might be interested in [1]. I just added some diffs from this discussion you took part in [2]. If you'd like to participate in drafting the RfC, please feel free to. Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

suggestion--make it explicit that all of them deal with 2008 incidents. (If there are older one mixed in, consider removing them)DGG (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Matsuo Bashō

I downloaded some articles about Matsuo Bashō from JSTOR. Email me if you want them... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have JSTOR access myself. Feel free to add them to the article and I'll help with the rewriting. Shii (tock) 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't do too much; very busy. This one has good info: Carter, Steven D. (1997). On a Bare Branch: Bashō and the Haikai Profession. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 57–69. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, this is full of information Ueda brushed over. Great find. Shii (tock) 04:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

veri-thing

I am user Ashibaka on Commons but not for long. Shii (tock) 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Belated Thank You

		The Special Barnstar
		I thought that you had left WP a long while ago; this is a 'Thank You' for doing the 'right thing' many moons ago. Again, Thank You. Duke53 | Talk 05:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Shii (tock) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

administrators

Would you mind if I added your userpage to the Category:Wikipedia administrators? I'm trying to populate it. Enigma ^message 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, go ahead. Shii (tock) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your wikipedia essay on "everything shii knows"

...was sad. You may not hold a grudge against SV, etc, but they deserve to have someone tell them off. :`( mathwhiz29 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading. Shii (tock) 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Longest word: smiles, beleaguered, etc.

Hello, Shii. The sources I cited for the "smiles" and "beleaguered" jokes were clearly published in the 19th century. Obviously, they were microfilmed and digitized, and these digital images were posted on the web much later; if you have a suggestion for how to adjust the citation to acknowledge that the link is to an electronic image of the 19th century publication, fine. The point is that the sources do make it clear that the riddles were around in the 1800s, and I had inline citations to links providing visual evidence that supported that assertion. I will be restoring my edit. Emoll (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You linked to a generic microfilm database on Google Books. The dates on these databases are wrong. They begin in the 19th or early 20th centuries but their records extend for over 100 years without changing the date. For example, here is a poem in the "1929" issue of Educational Horizons: [3]

I went to my college's library and learned that this actually appears in the fall 1966 issue.

Please revert your edit accordingly. Shii (tock) 23:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually 40 minutes is not reasonable in this case. I had to go to work. Now I'm back. Check this link, please:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kokfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA122

The page imaged in that link shows the "beleaguered" riddle and refers to the "smiles" riddle. It is page 122 of a book. If you scroll up to the first title page (two pages before the page numbered "1"), you will see an imprint of the year of the book's publication: 1882.

I can look for a better source for even earlier "smiles" references, but the one above would seem to remove any doubt that both riddles were around by 1882. Emoll (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see. The second reference, then, is probably good. But I would still doubt the first. The typesetting does not necessarily pin it down to 1850. Shii (tock) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

needed before SUL

• zh:Wikipedia:更改用戶名/帳戶易手#Shii_.E2.86.90_En.Shii
• ja:Wikipedia:利用者名変更依頼#Shii_.E2.86.90_Ashibaka

Done! I am the master of all wikis! Shii (tock) 06:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Matsuo Basho

Not sure if you are still watching the GAR for this, as it has gone on a while, but there's been an actionable comment from EyeSerene. Geometry guy 10:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation on ja.wiki

Hi, Shii. Your account on JAWP was safely moved to ja:User:Shii by Ks aka 98. Welcome again! --Aotake (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Shii (tock) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Category sort

I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you won't mind. :) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

This [4] looks like a piece of straighforward vandalism but you appear to be a credible editor. Therefore, could you provide a source? --BozMo talk 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so much that there is a recorded effect for a tiny number of people (I cannot find it particularly linked to wild parsnips mind you) but the idea you should wear body armour and stay indoors if accidentally exposed to a wild parsnip... --BozMo talk 11:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you become sensitive to ultraviolet light, the way to avoid it is to stay indoors. I can't find this described in medical literature but it seems like common sense to me. The treatment was explained to me by a trained horticulturalist who specifically named parsnip, and good use of Google, or even clicking on the link to the article I wrote on the subject, will find references for that. Thanks for catching my vandalism. Shii (tock) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please move Shraddha to Faith in Buddhism

Shraddha right now is only about Buddhism, but the concept applies to Hinduism, Jainism, etc., also. I tried to do the move myself and got the message, "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move."

I know I could use Requested Moves, but I prefer to avoid using Wikipedia bureaucracy when I can just directly ask another administrator for help.

Also, there is currently no article on "Faith in Hinduism," or "Faith in Jainism," etc., so Shraddha should just be left as a redirect, I guess, for now. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Shii (tock) 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Something you should see.

I don't know if you want to get involved or not. If you don't want to, that's fine but there's somewhat of an edit-war going on between User:ZuluPapa5 and User:Longchenpa over the article on Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. Naive "assumptions of good faith" aside, what seems to be going on is that Longchenpa is a disgruntled ex-follower or otherwise critic of Jetsunma on the one hand, while ZuluPapa5 is a follower of Jetsunma on the other hand. Longchenpa has been trying to basically own the article, though he has been relatively fair, mostly because Jetsunma is in fact a cult leader and even Penor Rinpoche knows it.

So, I was wondering, could you give ZuluPapa a warning or something for edit-warring, contentious editing, etc.? Otherwise I'd have to go to WP:ANI, but I don't want to do that. You already know how useless most administrators are. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like he is doing a good job using the talk page. WP:ANI wouldn't be the right place for dispute resolution in this case. Shii (tock) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shii!!!

Hi Shii! I'm a big fan of yours, your website with a bunch of other websites rocks! Go you! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.164.83 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Create an article for Won Kon Ye

Would you be interested in creating an article for Won Ko Yee? Based on your article on him, you seem to be knowledgeable about it, and there seems to be some confusion among western Buddhists about who he is and what his credentials are.

He's now going by the ridiculously elaborate name, "H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III Wan Ko Yeshe Norbu." [5] He has some hilarious lineage charts on his website. His followers have been shoving his book in people's faces on the street and sending out invitations for monks to come to see him perform "miracles," at one of his temples.

It might be fun to create an article on him, hmm? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability has not been established, though I have looked long and hard. Shii (tock)

Thank goodness. -__- Iamwisesun (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to visitors: Please be advised that Wan Ko Yee, aka Yi Yungao, is wanted by Guangdong police for mass fraud. I have not been able to contact the Guangdong police because I don't speak Chinese, but I will furnish proof via e-mail if you ask. Please be aware that all these organizations are likely fraudulent:[6]

• United International World Buddhism Association Headquarters - 660 Monterey Pass Road Suite #100, Monterey Park, CA 91754, PHONE: 626-281-5728, FAX: 626-588-2290.
• International Arts Publishing
• International Buddhism Sangha Association - 3134 22nd Street, San Francisco, CA 94110-3219; PHONE 415-920-9816; FAX 415-920-9836
• United Relief Committee - www.unitedreliefcommittee.org
• Master Wan Ko Yee International Cultural Institute - 707 W. Valley Blvd., Suite 22, Alhambra, CA 91803, PHONE: 626-281-6378, FAX: 626-281-3243 - 1115 SE Morgan Road, Vancouver, WA 98664; PHONE 360-608-2290; ptsay@wbpllc.net.
• World Buddhism Publishing LLC - 280 West Fairview Avenue, #A, San Gabriel, CA 91776: TEL 626-457-9157; FAX 626-457-9156
• World Dharma Voice

Yrs, Shii (tock) 07:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (There she is!!)

Thanks for addressing this tag on There she is!!. I think that article can be very informative without such detailed plot summaries. ALTON .ıl 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenu and OT VIII

Sorry, but the info you added to the article Xenu was only backed up to one source, the primary source itself, which doesn't satisfy WP:RS. The info you added to the article OT VIII was not backed up by any sources at all, so I removed it. Feel free to add it back in to the article if you find coverage of the material in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Hey, just FYI my comment at Talk:Sarah Palin was intended for the para above - it landed there as someone slipped an edit past mine. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

oh Shii (tock) 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Constitution Party

Please see the discussion I have started regarding your recent edit to the Constitution Party article. Thanks. Have a wonderful day! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Shii is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia December

List of New Religious Movements Talk

You had weighed in previously on the List of New Religious Movements talk page. I have a proposal at the tail end for re-titling of the section, and sourcing every entry in that section. Would you mind taking a look at it and weighing in opposing or supporting. Thanks. Groupsisxty (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Historical Atlas

Hi Ashibaka,

There is a revival in the WikiProject Historical Atlas. So, if you are interested, you are welcome to join.Daanschr (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

cool Shii (tock) 07:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shii

Probably I'm a stupid for saying this, but I like your point of view about the interbutt. Also, yor site is awesome.--Execoot (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Shii (tock) 07:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rom baro

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rom baro. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. P.S. your talk page wizard is condescending Shii (tock) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page and relisted the AFD. It would have helped if you had specified that you had improved the page at the AFD. P.S. your message at the AFD was condescending. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This page has since been deleted by Cirt. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

chill pill

A chill pill is hereby awarded to all readers of my talk page

[7]

Shii (tock) 01:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~~~~ Marx0728 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

big-boards

From what I can gather the boards currently listed may or may not have paid a fee to fact track the process. But the data displayed is accurate, this is like saying the alexia ranking is invalid because it only includes a select group who have the tool bar. I did not realise that a registration fee was required this dose not make it a self published source according to the deffanition (to do that you would need to show that a fee had been paid rather than they just resisted and waited their turn.). As a compramise I have made a not in the ref. --Nate1481 13:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

More generally, it might be an idea to put up a big boards article, as it would seem notable, and the limitations of their method could be included there --Nate1481 13:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean by SPS. Big-boards does not reveal the way they get their data (they probably just pull it from the board without verification), does not have their information vetted, and does not accept forums that do not require membership (see their FAQ). Their definition of an Internet forum is therefore different from Wikipedia, and they are the opposite of a reliable source in most every way. Shii (tock) 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a guideline of your opinion? If the former could you point me at the relevant links? --Nate1481 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources WP:SPS Shii (tock) 04:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was where is Big boards mentioned? Your 'notes' seem some what crusading in tone. --Nate1481 10:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're looking for a list of every self-published website that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards? I'm not even going to bother compromising with that position, I will just revert you now. I can and will revert you every three days so feel free to go to WP:3O whenever you would like to add a sane voice to this conversation. Shii (tock) 12:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm saying I dissagree with you so could you point out where Big boards and Alexia rank specifically have been discussed and a consensus formed that they are unreliable sources as I have not seen one, and as I dis agree with you view (and largely with the methods you use to push it Deleting the whole section was clearly making a point). The comments you added to the notes were beyond a clarification, and ran into commentary that I felt was in appropriate, as did adding weasel wording. Come on, I tried to disscus this with you and you have not once answered my original question, of if this is a consensus or you opinon, I am not saying Big boards is the best possible source, but instead of just adding ranty notes, you could add a better source that supportes or opposes the view stated.

What measure would you use to asses the relative popularity of internet forums? --Nate1481 13:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not even talking about that. We don't have a "find the least sucky source" policy, we have a "reliable source" policy. Is there anyone out there who thinks big-boards.com constitutes some sort of reliable source? Shii (tock) 08:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was asking for you help. As you seem to feel that those sources are not appropriate, could you point at what you would consider a reliable, so I don't spent my time searching for a different one that you can & say you don't like either. --Nate1481 09:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there is probably no other source for this information, so you'd do well just to remove your remarkable claim altogether. Shii (tock) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3O: Is the question here simply whether alexa.com should be considered a reliable source? —BradV 03:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay (I've been very sick this past week and I apologize for my grumpiness in the responses above). We are mainly debating the use of big-boards.com, a non-credentialed site put up by a non-expert. As far as I can tell Nate's argument is that it is okay to use it to justify the claim that his website is the "largest xyz on the Internet" because there is no better source. Shii (tock) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources guideline, Wikipedia articles should use "reliable, third-party, published sources." This has been upheld many times to mean that websites don't qualify. —BradV 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case please assist me with monitoring Bullshido.net to make sure Nate's claim stays off the page. Shii (tock) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, this is not "resolved". If you actually read the, rather than just removing it without thinking, then you might notice that shortly after the disagreement started I went back and edited the page to state explicitly that it was the Alexia & big boards rankings, not a general claim or 'largest' that you assert is un-provable. As you state that their is no other possible source for this type of information then it is reasonable to give relevent related infomation that is indicative of this but explicetly dose nto state it. giving Also websites explicitly can be reliable sources details. I am not asking anyone to make an exception to a core policy I edited the article to be a report of facts, so that there are now 2 primary souces stating what rankings these sites hold and unless you can tell me another common, realistic, method of comparing site popularity I think that inclusion in this form is reasonable. I am copying this to the article talk page could the disscussion please continue there? --Nate1481 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"According to Uncyclopedia.org Bullshido is the worst website on the Internet.[1]" Shii (tock) 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)